Burn patients frequently require prolonged follow-up care after injury. Follow-up is typically done as an outpatient to a burn clinic where the patient is seen by a burn therapist. Positioning, splinting, exercise, and pressure garments help preserve function and appearance as burn wounds heal. Body surfaces with high skin tension and movement (e.g., chest, face, hands, joints, and upper legs) are most susceptible to scarring and contractures. Follow-up visits are initially scheduled 7 to 14 days after discharge, and then every 1 to 2 weeks for the next 2 months, finally every month for about 3 months, and then every 3 months until their hypertrophic scar matures and they no longer need compression garments (usually a period of 12 months).

Standard care for the prevention of abnormal scarring after burn injury includes pressure garment therapy (PGT); however, it is associated with potential patient morbidity and high costs. In a meta-analysis, Anzarut et al (2009) examined the effectiveness of PGT for the prevention of abnormal scarring following burn injury. This study had 3 aims: (i) to conduct a systematic review to identify the available evidence for the use of pressure garment therapy (PGT); (ii) to assess the quality of the available evidence; and (iii) to conduct a meta-analysis to quantify the effectiveness of PGT for the prevention of abnormal scarring following burn. Randomized control trials were identified from CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, the "grey literature" and hand searching of the Proceedings of the American Burn Association. Primary authors and pressure garment manufacturers were contacted to identify eligible trials. Bibliographies from included studies and reviews were searched. Study results were pooled to yield weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and reported using 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). The review incorporated 6 unique trials involving 316 patients. Original data from 1 unpublished trial were included. Overall, studies were considered to be of high methodological quality. The meta-analysis was unable to demonstrate a difference between global assessments of PGT-treated scars and control scars (WMD: -0.46; 95 % CI: -1.07 to 0.16). The meta-analysis for scar height showed a small, but statistically significant, decrease in height for the PGT-treated group (SMD: -0.31; 95 % CI: -0.63 to 0.00). Results of meta-analyses of secondary outcome measures of scar vascularity, pliability and color failed to show a difference between groups. The authors concluded that PGT does not appear to alter global scar scores. It does appear to improve scar height, although this difference is small and of questionable clinical importance. The beneficial effects of PGT remain unproven, while the potential morbidity and cost are not insignificant. Given current evidence, additional research is needed to ascertain the effectiveness, risks and costs of PGT.

There is a lack of evidence that pressure garments and silicone sheeting result in improved outcomes compared to pressure garments alone. In a pilot study, Harte et al (2009) examined if pressure and silicone therapy used simultaneously are more effective in treating multiple characteristics of hypertrophic scars than pressure alone. A total of 22 subjects with hypertrophic burn scars were randomized to receive Jobskin pressure garments and Mepiform silicone sheeting or Jobskin pressure garments alone. The Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used to measure multiple scar characteristics at baseline, week 12, and week 24. No statistically significant difference was found in the rate of change of the VSS scores between the pressure therapy (PT) group and the PT plus silicone group at week 12 or week 24; however, the mean scores of both groups decreased over 24 weeks. There were no statistically significant changes in the VSS subscores (pigmentation, pliability, scar height, and vascularity) from baseline to week 12 or week 24. A statistically significant relationship was observed between the VSS score and total burn surface area (less than 30 %) in the PT group at baseline (p < 0.05), over 12 weeks (p < 0.05), and over 24 weeks (p < 0.05). The authors noted that given the limitations of this study, especially the small sample size, further research is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn on this therapy approach. However, this pilot study has discussed the recurring issues in the research regarding these controversial treatments and has yielded potential for further investigation in a fully powered randomized controlled trial.

Additional Information

Copyright Aetna Inc. All rights reserved. Clinical Policy Bulletins are developed by Aetna to assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. This Clinical Policy Bulletin contains only a partial, general description of plan or program benefits and does not constitute a contract. Aetna does not provide health care services and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes. Participating providers are independent contractors in private practice and are neither employees nor agents of Aetna or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. This Clinical Policy Bulletin may be updated and therefore is subject to change.

You are now leaving the Aetna website.

Links to various non-Aetna sites are provided for your convenience only. Aetna Inc. and its subsidiary companies are not responsible or liable for the content, accuracy, or privacy practices of linked sites, or for products or services described on these sites.